> > > > Why don't they use the netipx code? Surely netware use ipx. > > > > > > IPX is based on XNS. It differs by one significant field. The > > > SAP (Service Advertisement Protocol) in IPX comed directly from > > > XNS. > > > > So you are agreeing with me that to use netns to do ipx when we > > have netipx does not make sense? :-) > > > > > FWIW. > > > > I know, a lot of my time went into netipx, which was derived from > > netns. I also did IPXrouted which does SAP too. > > I was mostly agreeing with Julian, that if people are using it, it > shouldn't be orphaned because something moved out from under some > otherwise perfectly good code. A lot of people used to do 802.3 > vs. Ethernet II, as well, and they did it for compatability with > legacy systems... so whether it makes technical sense or not, it > might make business sense. 8-).
You can tell them it makes business sense to do a s/AF_NS/AF_IPX/g in their code and suddenly they will be able to do even more then before, for instance they will be able to do different frame types on the same wire and one different wires. The netns code can only do one frame type per box, which is a pain if you want to connect part 802.3 and part Ethernet II networks. Yes I know because we run it like that at work. As a bonus FreeBSD get to maintain one piece of code and not two pieces that do almost exactly the same thing. Bugs fixed in one place, enhancements made in one place. I'm sure it makes business sense. :-) John -- John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message